1. technology and computing
2. hardware
3. computer

Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369 – 384
www.elsevier.com/locate/jaging
The information aged: A qualitative study of older adults’ use
of information and communications technology
Neil Selwyn
School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WT, UK
Abstract
Although it is widely perceived that older adults should be making more use of information and
communications technology (ICT), academic studies in this area have been limited, especially from a sociological
perspective. We still know little, for example, about the reasons and motivations underlying older adults’
adoption or nonadoption of ICTs. We also know little about the nature of this use and the support that older
adults draw upon regarding ICTs. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we know little about the outcomes and
‘‘life-fit’’ of older adults’ (non)use of ICTs. Drawing upon in-depth interview data from 35 individuals aged over
60 years (collected as part of a larger research project looking at adults’ use of ICT), this article addresses these
issues of older adults’ adoption, nonadoption, and use of ICT. From this analysis, the article highlights the key
issue of many older adults’ ambivalence toward ICT in light of the limited relevance of new technologies to their
day-to-day lives. The article concludes by considering what steps can be taken to facilitate wider use of ICT by
older adults.
D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The ability to use information and communications technology (ICT) is now assumed by most
commentators to be a prerequisite to living in the ‘‘information age.’’ Received wisdom has it that ICT is
transforming all aspects of society—from civic involvement to the arts, employment to leisure. Thus, as
the UK government has been prone to proclaim, using information technology is nothing less than ‘‘the
indispensable grammar of modern life’’ for all adults (Wills, 1999). This civic and societal imperative
has given rise to prevailing political efforts around the world to ensure that every citizen has a basic level
of ‘‘universal access’’ to information technologies and that disparities are reduced between those
segments of society that are making use of ICT and those segments that are not. In particular, social
E-mail address: selwynnc@cardiff.ac.uk (N. Selwyn).
URL: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/selwyn.
0890-4065/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2004.06.008
370
N. Selwyn / Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369–384
commentators are beginning to highlight the fact that the information society is also an ageing society
(Bernard & Phillips, 2000), and that encouraging older adults’ use of ICT is an essential prerequisite to
overcoming the ‘‘digital divide.’’1 This has led, in turn, to the recent discursive portrayal of ‘‘silver
surfers’’, a popular but nebulous description of the confident and competent older ICT user (Brayfield,
2000; Cody, Dunn, Hoppin, & Wendt, 1999; Copps, 2000).
The ‘‘silver surfer’’ discourse reinforces the notion that older adults stand to benefit from ICTs in
various ways, and that the ability to make use of new technology is a ready means through which to
‘‘bridge the generation gap’’ (Burdick, 2001). Previous research has identified a host of benefits of ICT
for older adults that can be characterised as leading to either social and self-understanding benefits (e.g.,
increased access to current affairs and health information), interaction benefits (e.g., increased
connectivity and social support), or task-orientated goals (e.g., ICT-assisted work, travel, shopping,
and financial management) (Adler, 1996; Cody et al., 1999; Loges & Jung, 2001; White et al., 1999;
White & Weatherall, 2000). Empirical studies have also found use of the Internet to lead older adults to
lower perceived life stress (e.g., Wright, 2000). In essence then, the use of ICTs is seen as a ready means
for older adults to ‘‘reconnect or improve their connection with the outside world’’ (White et al., 1999, p.
362) and ‘‘enjoy a higher quality of life’’ (Irizarry & Downing, 1997, p. 161).
Yet, the potential of ICTs for empowerment of older adults has been tempered by a succession of
reports that technology is proving in practice to be an activity that many older adults are excluded
from (e.g., Hanley, 2002; Madden & Savage, 2000; Teo, 2001). Indeed, our own survey data from a
randomised sample of 1001 adults confirm the findings of previous studies that age is highly
significant in whether an individual can access and make use of ICTs such as the computer and the
Internet (see Selwyn, Gorard, Furlong, & Madden, 2003). These survey data also confirm that using a
computer is not only a minority activity amongst older adults but also highly stratified activity by
gender, marital status, educational background, and age (i.e., between the ‘‘61–70 years’’ and ‘‘71
years and over’’ age groups). There is therefore growing concern that older adults must engage with
new technologies or be further disadvantaged in contemporary society. As Green and McAdams (2003,
p. 8) reason:
to lag in the use of technology is to remain behind a veil of limited knowledge and opportunities. In
combination, education and access to information can ameliorate the impact of. . .disadvantage.
However, throughout this body of existing research and the surrounding debate on aging and ICT.
there are a number of unanswered questions regarding older adults’ use of ICT. We know little about
the reasons and motivations underlying older adults’ adoption or nonadoption of ICTs. We know little
about the nature of this use and the support that older adults draw upon when making use of ICTs.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we know little about the outcomes of older adults’ (non)use of
ICTs. As Loges and Jung (2001, p. 536) reason, ‘‘underlying much of this research is a presumption
that seniors who do not gain Internet access are deprived of a resource for enhancing their lives, a
resources to which others (e.g., other seniors or younger people) have access.’’ In short, despite the
increasing political, academic, and practitioner interest in older adults and technology, we know little
1
In this article, ‘‘older adults’’ are defined as those over the age of 60.
N. Selwyn / Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369–384
371
of the realities of how older adults use, and do not use, ICTs in their everyday lives. From this
background, these questions now form the basis for the remainder of this article.
2. Research methods
The article is based on the data collected from a research project examining overall patterns of ICT
use and nonuse by adults.2 The project focused on four local authorities in the west of England and
South Wales. These research areas were chosen in terms of representativeness for population density,
economic activity, and levels of educational attainment. A systematic stratified sample (in terms of age
and gender) of 1001 adults over the age of 21 living in three electoral ward in each of four different
authorities was selected for home-based structured interviews. An analysis of these survey data with
regard to older adults’ use of ICT is reported by Selwyn et al. (2003). The present article draws upon the
second stage of the data collection that involved in-depth, semistructured interviews with 100
respondents covered by the initial survey. This subsample of 100 interviewees was selected to include
equivalent numbers of individuals with high/low levels of technology use and high/low educational
background; with additional criteria of selection including socioeconomic status, geography (urban/
rural), ethnicity, and age. Given our interest in older adults’ use of ICT, this article concentrates on data
from the interviews conducted with individuals over the age of 60 (n = 35).
As can be seen in Table 1, given that the interview sample of 100 respondents was selected to force
equivalent numbers of individuals with high/low levels of technology use and high/low educational
background, our interview subsample of older adults is obviously overrepresentative of computer users
and individuals who are more educated. As a consequence, the interview subsample also overrepresents
individuals who are male and/or married in relation to the random survey sample. The ages of the
interview sample ranged from 61 to 84 years (mean age = 68 years, S.D. = 7.01) as compared with the
ages of the survey sample ranging from 61 to 96 years (mean age = 72 years, S.D. = 7.96).
The interviews focused on individuals’ educational and employment ‘‘careers’’ as well as their
technological histories and present technological and educational activities. Interviews lasted between 45
minutes and 2 hours and covered a range of areas of open-ended questions relating to ICT use, i.e.,
respondent’s computer (non)use in the home, respondent’s computer (non)use in the workplace if
applicable, respondent’s (non)use of community computer resources, the prevalence and use of
computers in respondents’ social networks, and respondents’ general views on technology and society.
Examples of such questions are highlighted in bold throughout the interview excerpts presented in this
article. In this way, the interviews approached a life-history or ‘‘life-story’’ method in that they focused
on eliciting individual’s experiences through a chronological autobiography of education, work, and
technology use (see Dhunpath, 2000). Obviously, people’s use of technology is a complex and ‘‘messy’’
affair and is inevitably less straightforward in practice than many of the elicited narratives from our
interviews (McAdams, 1998). Nevertheless, these interview data do allow for a more detailed
2
This research reported in this article was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant R000239518). The
author would like to thank Stephen Gorard, John Furlong, Louise Madden, and Kate Hubert, as well as the individuals who took
part in the interviews. The author would also like to thank the two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on an earlier
draft of this article.
372
N. Selwyn / Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369–384
Table 1
Demographic characteristics of survey and interview subsamples of adults over the age of 60 years, % (n)
Male
Female
Single/widowed
Married/living with partner
Left school at 16 or before
Continued with education within
one year of leaving school
Long term illness/disability
No long-term illness/disability
Frequent user of ICT
Moderate user of ICT
Nonuser of ICT
Interview subsample of adults
over 60 years (n = 35)
Survey subsample sample of
adults over 60 years (n = 352)
63
37
20
80
60
40
(22)
(13)
(7)
(28)
(21)
(14)
44
56
48
52
79
21
40
60
34
20
46
(14)
(21)
(12)
(7)
(16)
37 (129)
63 (217)
14 (50)
8 (29)
78 (273)
(154)
(198)
(163)
(178)
(279)
(73)
Categories of ICT user (i.e., ‘‘frequent,’’ ‘‘moderate,’’ ‘‘non-,’’ and ‘‘never) were calculated from survey data relating to selfreported frequency of ICT use in domestic, work, and community locations.
investigation of the factors influencing older adults’ use (and nonuse) of ICT. The article now goes onto
discuss the research questions via an analysis of these interview data.
The constant comparison technique was used to analyse all the interview data generated (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). For the purposes of this article, all the interview data were grouped by age (i.e., from
adults over the age of 60) and analysed separately. This initially involved one analyst (the author)
reading all the interview transcripts to gain an overall sense of the data. All the interview data were then
read again and ‘‘open-coded’’ to produce an initial code list until, in the opinion of the researcher,
analysis had reached theoretical saturation. Although some in vivo codes were adapted (i.e., directly
using the language of the participant), the majority were researcher-led and analytic (Strauss, 1987).
From this basis, the data were then selectively coded in terms of categories identified with the initial
code list directly related to the aims of the study. Analysis of the interview data elicited a variety of
influences and factors underlying respondents’ (non)use of ICT. These can be broadly grouped into
preexisting aspects of adoption and nonadoption of computers as well as the (ir)relevance to individuals’
everyday lives. These themes are discussed in detail in the following sections.
2.1. Exploring older adults’ adoption of ICT
When talking to computer users a range of motivations and reasons to begin using ICT were offered.
Reflecting the ‘‘information society’’ imperative discussed above, some interviewees explained their
adoption of ICT simply in terms of feeling that they wanted to ‘‘keep up’’ with computerised
technology—thus reflecting the self-referential nature of much computer use apparent in the interviews
(i.e., deciding to use a computer for its own sake):
When did you think of getting a computer in the house?
I retired more or less when I was sixty in 1992. I didn’t even dream of it as I had enough to do. Later
this house came up and with some help I was doing that and I wasn’t particularly interested in getting
N. Selwyn / Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369–384
373
[a computer]. Then I had a heart attack and bypass and in that last two and a half years I’ve decided I
need to get with it. I don’t know why. I think not knowing something about it worries you! [Now] I set
up email and I use the web for various things but I’ve had no immediate goal. I decided after a year
that I might as well get one so I got one. [Male, 70]
Other interviewees expanded upon this sense of keeping up-to-date in terms of the perceived
usefulness of ICT for their near future—especially in terms of maintaining independence in the face of
the reduced financial security and reduced mobility associated with old age. As one retired woman
reasoned, ‘‘we’re going to need it, and I can imagine myself at ninety, setting my house in order, doing
my shopping, sending emails all over the place. It makes you independent: that’s what attracts me’’
[Female, 64]. Thus, for some of our younger interviewees beginning to use a computer was a way of
coping with preparation for old age, as this recently retired man explained: ‘‘Old age is coming on and
I’m looking at the time when perhaps we may be immobile but we can still do our shopping on the
Internet [and] I can get access over the Internet to my bank account’’ [Male, 61].
Yet these decisions to acquire and use a computer were not always decisions taken on the part of
individuals and/or their partners. In particular, we found many examples throughout our interviews of
encouragement, or coercion from children who wanted their parents to make use of computers. As this
man, who had one of his daughter’s laptop computers ‘‘lent’’ to him on a long-term basis explained:
It’s [my daughter] actually, who keeps saying to me, ‘‘Dad, you know, here’s my computer, use it,
otherwise you’ll lose it.’’ And my eldest daughter. . .she also encourages me, because when I go over to
their offices, she’ll say, ‘‘sit down at the computer, Dad, have a go—do this letter for me.’’ [Male, 69]
Other interviewees had begun to use computers for specific projects and activities and others had
simply continued using a computer after retiring as they had previously done in work and at home. Yet,
this theme of encouragement from younger members of the family rather than peers was recurrent.
Whereas many interviewees spoke of using a computer as being an unusual activity within their social
networks, only rarely (and generally with more affluent interviewees) was having a computer seen as
being part of people’s cultural and social expectations of being ‘‘retired.’’ As this retired women
explains, the computer was an expected status symbol within her and her husband’s social network:
How did you end up having the computer in the house?
Because my brother had one and my husband is going to be president of Rotary. And of course, all
these Rotarians, because they’re ex-bank managers and that’s how they spend their day—faffing
around on these things—have set themselves up in their retirement in their spare bedroom, sending
each other these little billet-douches [sic], you see, and my husband wanted to have the same sort of
situation for him. [Female, 65]
In terms of how older adults had adopted and acquired computers, it was noticeable that few of our
interviewees had independently purchased a new computer. Wallace (2002) distinguishes between the
different economic spheres that household activities such as acquiring a computer can be conducted in,
for example, the formal/market economy, the social economy, or the informal economy. From our
interviews, it was clear that older adults tended to rely on a variety of informal and social strategies—
most notably, the informal acquisition of computers through the extended family, usually in the form of
374
N. Selwyn / Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369–384
children and younger relations who were also using computers. As this man explains, his entry into using
computers at home came via a combination of having to use a computer in his job in a milk pasteurising
plant, support from his then schoolboy son, learning from books and, eventually, from an old computer
acquired from a friend:
How did you learn to use the computer for controlling the milk pasteurising system.. . .
I read the book. Just read a book.
What, the manual that came with it or.. . .?
.
The manual that came with it to start with and then I bought a couple of computer books and picked it
up from that. My lad showed me a lot because he was—I was at home with him then.
That’s when he was still at school?
No, he’d left school then. He was into computers when he was at school, from about thirteen, but we
hadn’t got one at home then. He got an old one, a very old one, from somebody we know and he sort
of showed me one or two bits from that. And then he bought one himself, when he started work. Then
I got this one. [Male, 63]
Family and friends are therefore very important elements in many of our interviewees’ adoption of
ICT. Throughout the interviews there were examples of computers being acquired through ‘‘unpaid
community exchanges’’ where computers, software, and peripherals were exchanged on an unpaid
basis within the extended family and social or neighbourhood networks’’ (Williams & Windebank,
2000). This non-market-orientated acquisition of goods was a recurring theme through our interviews
with all age groups, but in the case of older adults, it was predominantly initiated and executed by
grown-up children:
My stepson arrived for my birthday in August and he said, ‘‘I’ve brought you a present’’ and he put it
on the floor there and it was his old computer, fully set up. Well, he plugged it in and set it up, put it
on the Internet, everything was done for me. And I would have never gone into that, if I hadn’t been
pushed by Steven, that’s my wife’s older son. And he just pushed me willy-nilly into the whole
Internet fiasco. [Male, 61]
Interestingly, the prevalence of mutual aid and unpaid exchange was not confined to those
respondents on lower incomes or in lower socioeconomic groups, with some of our more affluent
respondents also acquiring and using computers via nonmarket means. That said there were noticeable
differences in the nature of these exchanges, as our Rotarian’s wife again explains:
My brother had one. His son, my nephew, Timothy, is in the business. Timothy’s company sets up
these systems all over the world. And so Timothy is always dealing with the next wave of improved
computer. And my brother had one, courtesy of Timothy, when they upgraded. And then Timothy,
bought his father a garden planner thing that would draw out your garden, only to find that the system
which my brother had wasn’t quite compatible with this package. So Timothy, of course, said well
that’s alright, and set Laurence up [with a better computer] and my husband, had already spoken to
my brother saying ‘‘look, can have we have the next one in line when Timothy’s you know, his
company’s sorting out.’’ So that’s how we got one. I think most people like us get them like that. Our
friends who have them, none of them have bought them; they’ve retired and it’s been part of the
N. Selwyn / Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369–384
375
retirement package. They come away with the one that was in their office. Because as they’ve gone,
[the computer’s] come with them. And then the incoming chappie, whosoever, he wants the latest allsinging, all-dancing affair, so that seems to be how it works. [Female, 65]
Interestingly, as Williams and Windebank (2000, pp. 134–135) observe, such examples of self-help
are ‘‘not a strategy pursued solely out of economic necessity or simply because the household has the
tools to do it. Instead, over half of all self-help is undertaken by people themselves out of preference.’’
Thus, many of our interviewees had benefited from this constant process of the recycling and informal
redistribution of computers from the workplace to the family and from family member to family
member. Given the rapid ‘‘hi-tech’’ obsolescence of computers, older adults were often at the end of
such recycling chains, with knowledgeable younger family members ‘‘setting them up’’ and ‘‘sorting
them out’’.
2.2. Exploring older adults’ nonadoption of ICT
As we had found that the majority of older adults from our survey data (77%) were not computer
users at the time of study, understanding why individuals were not making use of ICT is also an integral
part of understanding older adults’ engagement with the information age. In line with the findings of
previous research, some of our non-computer-using interviewees offered practical reasons of cost,
health, and lack of exposure in the workplace as underlying their inability to now use a computer. For
example:
It depends on the old finances, actually, to be honest. Because I’m not always going to be working or
able to work, probably—touch wood I’ll go on for a few years yet, you never know. [Male, 69]
I have an affliction. Though I can do lots of things with my hand, I have never been able to operate a
keyboard. I can never operate a typewriter, I was never able to play the piano. Yet, I can do plenty of
other things. [Male, 84]
I wasn’t [at work] long enough to go on further with [computers]. [Female, 71]
Whilst these practical ‘‘barriers’’ are undoubtedly important, a significant amount of our interviewees
were simply not interested in using a computer—especially when compared with other pastimes and
activities that they were participating in.
We have got so many friends now who talk about the Internet and you sort of feel a bit out of touch
but I don’t know that I would have the use for it, I’ve got neighbours who use it to find hotels but I
can do most things over the phone.
So you haven’t heard of anything someone has done and thought ‘‘wow!’’?
No. . .I like gardening, painting and decorating, anything creative. I can’t think of anything else apart
from going on holiday which is my biggest hobby! [Female, 61]
This equating of computer use as a hobby akin to gardening as opposed to a valuable life-tool is an
interesting reflection of many older adults’ perceptions of the computer as something to be used for its
376
N. Selwyn / Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369–384
own sake rather than as a genuinely useful tool. This feeling of a lack of usefulness was also echoed by
other nonusing interviewees:
I suppose I’m up in the library three or four days a week really one way and another, looking up
things. I use the libraries a lot. If not to take books out, to look things up. Using the Internet is the
modern thing to do [but] I have never actually asked them to find something on the Internet.
Have you ever been tempted to have a go?
No, I have just no interest. I go to friends’ homes and they say, ‘‘come and look at this’’ and they
fiddle about a bit and it seems to take ages to get onto it and then they press the wrong key or
something and it’s not engaged. No, I’m afraid I haven’t. I’ve got no need, no intention or need to use
it. If I was working I probably would. [Male, 72]
No, no, no, no need. If you could type, you don’t need one. There’s a library if you want to find things
out; there’s a telephone if you want to ask somebody a question or you can write a nice letter as quick
as a flash.. . .It’s a myth; people have been sold a myth to say they can’t live without one. They could
live extremely well. [Female, 65]
It is worth exploring this recurrent reason of ‘‘not being interested’’ or ‘‘having no need’’ to use
computers in more detail. One interpretation of these data could be that these individuals have a lack of
interest in new technologies due to a lack of skills, knowledge, or opportunities to use technology.
However, for many of our respondents this lack of interest and subsequent nonuse was not for a lack of
‘‘computer rich’’ social networks or opportunities to use computers if they wished:
You can always scan the papers for cheap flights. I don’t think there is any way we can apply it to our
lives to make such a vast difference. We are happy as we are. My sons would say ‘‘why don’t you get
a computer?.’’ My son was a computer advisor for schools in the city and was producing educational
software in tandem with being a schoolteacher and then he was bought out for millions of pounds.
[He] despairs of us but we are not interested. [Male, 67]
We also found that many nonusing interviewees could be classed as ‘‘lapsed users’’ (11 of the 16
nonusers); i.e., they had previously used a computer at earlier times in their life but now were not doing
so. Thus, a lack of familiarity or skills was not a problem—rather a genuine lack of interest in computers
once having finished work. As this man who has retired from a career where he used laptop computers
and email on a daily basis to schedule and coordinate a team of maintenance engineers explains:
Have you got a computer now?
No.
What about your children and grandchildren, do they have one?
Yes they have actually. My oldest one has a computer; my daughter’s husband had the lot. It can be
quite handy. They’ve got the printer, the lot. My other grandson has his own computer and so does
my son. My youngest daughter, the office she is working in got rid of all their computers and she got
one for my grandson.
You’ve never thought of getting one?
No.
N. Selwyn / Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369–384
377
Why’s that?
I don’t know, I’m not really interested. I have other hobbies, books. . .I walk quite a lot, go on
holiday, go on a ski holiday–spend the kid’s inheritance! Coach holidays. We see things in the paper
and ring up and book. [Male, 69]
Throughout our interviews, we found many individuals who had used computers at work but now
chose to make no use of them. In our interviews with individuals in higher socioeconomic groups,
there were some interviewees who had retired from executive or managerial jobs where the computer
was ostensibly an integral part of their work but now did not see it as having any role to play in
their retirement:
Yes, of course, like any manager I had a computer on my desk, of course, because I needed to know
factually what was happening on the financial situation on a day-to-day basis. And my secretary had a
word-processor, of course, so consequently all these things had to be tied in. And I had a computer
connected to the whole financial system in the organisation, on my desk,
Did you first learn how to use computers at work?
Yes but. . .I haven’t got one now. My son, who is in the industry, he always says to me, ‘‘I’ll drop one
off to you, Dad, one of these days,’’ but—I don’t know what I’d use it for at the moment. It’s not
something that terribly interests me, you know. I’ve got other interests that take my time. If I was
somebody who liked sitting at a computer and playing with it, then that would be fine, I’d get one, but
it doesn’t interest me very much. In fact, I’d rather not, because there’s all sorts of things that could
get in the way of my other activities. [Male, 72]
Individuals’ nonuse of computers was therefore often based on a complex and interdependent on a
series of events over time. Some interviewees had attempted to adopt but then given up and moved onto
other activities, as can be seen in the example of this woman who bought a computer toward the end of
her career to work from home:
How did you end up with a computer?
Well, it seemed the sensible thing to do, like. . .it makes your life easier and I was thinking, well I
could spend more time with my daughter or my mother. . .It would save time for my real life.
[Working on the computer] wasn’t a part of what I consider my real life. You know, my real life
started when I went home, so, maybe that was why, I never took [the computer] seriously enough.
That’s why I was a complete idiot at it.. . .I think I got it for the wrong reason. And my concentration
level at that time was sorely under par, I had too many other things going on in my life at the time so,
again, I didn’t really stick at it. I didn’t see it through, which is very unlike me, I’ve got to tell you.
What jobs was it that you wanted to do on the computer?
I wanted to put all my client base on it and obviously wanted to—a lot of my job was investments,
accounting, book-keeping—I could have put all that on the computer.
So then what actually happened?
I don’t know what it was, it was probably an electrical fault or a problem with the computer so I gave
it up. I doubt I’ve used a computer since then. . .I don’t think it’s an age thing either, I think it’s
mental, I don’t want to be bothered with it. I haven’t, I’ve had no great ambitions. And I think I
obviously didn’t treat it with the respect it deserved. [Female, 62]
378
N. Selwyn / Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369–384
2.3. Exploring older adults’ use of ICT and its ‘‘life-fit’’
Having considered how and why older adults were either using or not using computers we can
finally consider the nature and outcomes of their technology use when it occurred; in particular, how
ICT use fitted with the rest of people’s lives. As was reflected in our survey data, older adults’ use
of ICT was more limited in its range and frequency in comparison to the whole population. That
said, although 12 interviewees were classed from the survey data as ‘‘frequent’’ users of computers,
a minority (n = 4) could be classed as ‘‘heavy’’ or extensive users of computers, engaging with a
range of technologies and applications and, in one case, having used computers at home for over 40
years. For these individuals, computing could be classed as one of their primary interests and
hobbies:
I should think I’m on [the Internet] every day for something. . ., and if I want some information, I’ll
stay on there, you know.. . .All that information is on there if you keep looking for it. Ask Jeeves,
‘‘could you please state where all television transmitters are.’’ And then it will give you a list of
websites to go into. . .I’ve got a programme on there that will tell me where every speed camera is in
England! So if I’m going somewhere long distance, I’ll tap out the journey. There’s a link to
everything practically. I find I can get—well you can get in anywhere round the world. You can
actually get into space satellites now.
Yes. I remember when you could look down the Hubble telescope.. . .
You can still get in it now! I’ve got that on there [points to the computer]—I can just go into what
that’s looking at the moment. [Male, 63]
Most computer-using interviewees, however, were less extensive users with many using a
computer for a restricted range of applications with one or two specific main uses. Unlike many
of our interviewees in other age groups who tended to use computers on a more frequent basis and
for a range of purposes, older adults were more likely to be using a computer for a specific
‘‘project’’ or use—be it emailing one or two specific individuals or cataloguing or digitising
collections of photographs, music and books. In this way, the computer was a specific and purposive
event:
Well I use it as a word processor for letters. I store a few. I’m the sort of bloke in the office where
papers are all over the place. Once a month I have a blitz and tidy up. There’s rubbish on there I
haven’t bothered to clear off. So, I use it as a processor. [Male, 70]
We chat with a chap called Mike who’s up in Essex. He’s a bit of a war historian as well. And of
course, we talk a lot about this and we go on and on. We have to stop it, otherwise it costs a fortune.
But that’s the sort of thing I do and nothing more than that really. [Male, 69]
I have a scanner and I’m in the process of scanning all my black and white negatives into the
computer. They’re over 40 years old; they’re from when I was a teenager. [Male, 61]
Well, the first thing I wanted to do was to create a sort of database of all my books, which I have
maybe about 2000 books. And I want to put everything down. [Male, 61]
N. Selwyn / Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369–384
379
There was therefore a strong sense of older adults using ICT to sustain and support non-computerbased hobbies and leisure activities (Savolainen, 2000):
And so the computer was the first thing that inspired you to go out and start doing some
classes?
Yeah, having got the computer, I thought I want to find out how to use it. It really exercises the
grey matter, because if you don’t exercise your brain you just become redundant, you know. It’s
good because it does challenge you in many ways—makes you work, makes you exercise your
brain and there are end results as well. It’s helped my tennis coaching immensely. All the lesson
plans and I’m secretary of the club as well. Letter-writing, minutes, and I’m into tennis all round
the area actually—groups and community tennis partnership. I’ve got tennis coming out of my ears.
[Male, 63]
This interviewee’s initial allusion to using ICT as a medium for a specific activity in itself reflects
the perceived importance of remaining active. Activity has long been thought to be related to
successful ageing, with social and productive activities being argued to afford physical benefits, and
more solitary activities, having more psychological benefits (Menec, 2003). Of course, computers can
fulfil both types of activities—acting for some people as a means to ‘‘keep the brain ticking’’ and
‘‘filling a void in your life’’:
I always said when I’d left work I’d had enough [of computers] but I think it fills a void in your life.
It’s a useful tool. Its good if you’ve got any grandchildren, two or three of mine are computer literate
so I try to keep up with them. But it can be a bit boring talking to people about computers.
Do you have people you can chat to?
My friend who I used to work with. He became a computer buff because he had to do it—he was on a
supervisory grade. He had to learn. When I said I was going to have one he said don’t! It’s a waste of
time, you realise two or three hours have gone by and you haven’t achieved anything. [But] it keeps
the brain ticking a bit. [Male, 70]
There was, therefore, a recurring sense of ambivalence from many of our interviewees, acknowledging on the one hand the ‘‘amazing’’ and ‘‘miraculous’’ nature of computers but struggling to fit them
into their day-to-day lives:
My daughter went to New Zealand on her own just before Christmas for a month and she set up the
email thing and we went to a friend’s house and I actually sent one. I tapped it out and my friend sent
it, yes. We had a laugh and I thought that was amazing. . .But then, I’ve got an uncle in New Zealand,
but he’s on the phone. It’s nice to hear a voice. I really don’t know what we would use one for.
[Female, 63]
Yes, you can get information from companies quickly. You don’t have to wait for them to send you
their brochure. You can go on to their website, as it’s called, and there it is in front of you, the answer
to your initial question. That’s fine. Yes, people can do their accounts if they want to, but that’s
idleness. That’s a lot of money to sort of set out to just merely to have an electrical gizmo that will do
what you can do with paper and pencil yourself, or you should be able to. So I say this, because I have
380
N. Selwyn / Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369–384
in my mind, my friend, Jenny, who I’ve been with this morning. And she’s given up coming to sewing
class with me for why? Because she’s always sitting at that damn machine. It takes over your life, it
seems to me. It can do so many things that you feel obliged to do them. We get pretty pictures from
Jenny. She’s sitting there, she’s obviously waiting for something to come through on a fax machine or
something, so she sends us rubbish. Well, I think that’s wasteful in a home situation. Now, having said
that, yes, they are miraculous. [Female, 65]
3. Discussion
It is clear that to conceptualise all older adults as either absolute ‘‘nonusers’’ or highly empowered
‘‘silver surfers’’ is misleading. Indeed, the construction of the highly resourced, motivated ‘‘silver surfer’’
using ICTs for a range of ‘‘high-tech’’ applications is in many cases an erroneous presentation of older
adults use of ICT. Older adults’ computer use is more basic and mundane than the silver surfer discourse
suggests. These older adults who were using computers were mainly doing so for specific purposes; word
processing, keeping in contact with others and generally teaching themselves about using the computer.
Older adults’ computer use mainly takes place at home and where there is support it is from immediate
family and close relations. Similarly, nonusers are not a homogeneous group of disempowered, underresourced, and underskilled individuals. It was not apparent from our interviews that older adults are not
making use of computers because they are alienated from or unable to use new technologies.
How then can be begin to develop a more realistic understanding of older adults’ (non)use of ICT than
exists at present? Firstly, we would not argue, as others have, that technology-using individuals tend to
follow a ‘‘general life script’’ or life-course which can be considered typical to all (Green & McAdams,
2003)—neither would we claim that there are necessarily replicable elements of ‘‘successful’’ technologyusing older adults who can be encouraged via government policies. Instead, it is clear from our data that
using ICT is not merely about having or ‘‘not having’’ access to technologies, but the scope and intensity
of the relationships that people develop with technologies and the nature of what they do with them
(Loges & Jung, 2001). More importantly, and a point often overlooked, is that older adults are not simply
‘‘users’’ or ‘‘nonusers’’ of computers. Being a ‘‘computer user’’ is not a permanent state-of-being and
once having learned to use a computer does not irreversibly make one a computer user for life (and it
follows ‘‘technological have,’’ ‘‘information rich,’’ and successful ‘‘cyber-citizen’’). Instead, as Murdock
(2002) reminds us, the influences behind people’s (non)use of ICT are multifaceted and historical—with
individuals living technological ‘‘careers’’ mediated by ‘‘local’’ contexts of individual and community
technology use. Over their lifetime, we have seen examples of how older adults therefore move through
different states or levels of technology (non)use depending on their circumstances and context. For
example, someone making continuous and comprehensive use of ICT in the workplace may then move
into making only spasmodic and limited use of ICT once having retired.
Of particular interest in our data was the often nonenduring influence of the workplace in enrolling
people into the information age for the rest of their lives. As we saw from our interview data, the
workplace often acts as key site for people having to use, and learning to use, computers. Yet the forced
or coerced use of technology at work (as employees do not own the computers they use and their use is
often forced, shaped, and structured by their employment) was often not translated into later use in older
age. This is an important point, especially regarding the common argument during the 1980s and 1990s
that nonuse of ICT was merely a ‘‘generational’’ effect that would soon die away as cohorts of computer-
N. Selwyn / Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369–384
381
using workers become older adults themselves (e.g., Negroponte, 1995). Instead, there are deeper
influences at play here causing older adults to make less use of ICT despite their prior skills and
experience of computers. Thus, in trying to understand this enduring pattern, whilst we did find some
evidence of the usually suggested physiological and psychological reasons behind older adults’ lower
levels of use of ICT (e.g., poorer vision, memory, and dexterity), it seems that there were wider structural
reasons to older adults’ limited use of ICT. Key here are the two prominent issues from our interviews of
ambivalence and relevance of ICT for older adults.
Ambivalence refers to the experience of simultaneous positive and negative affect toward an object.
Whereas psychologists see ambivalence arising from intrapersonal conflict, here we can turn instead to
the broader sociological notion of ambivalence arising at the level of social structure when an
individual in a particular social relation experiences contradictory demands or norms that cannot be
simultaneously expressed in behaviour (Weingardt, 2000). Smelser (1998) makes the convincing case
that whilst the idea of ambivalence is usually used by academics to explain phenomena such as
reactions to death, separation, and relationships, it is also is required in our understanding of more
prosaic socially structured issues. Thus, with regards to ICT, we can identify older adults’ profoundly
ambivalent attitudes as reflecting various structural attributes of the ‘‘information society’’—in
particular, where we are surrounded by ‘‘macro’’ discourses and portrayals of inherently beneficial,
empowering, and ‘‘magical’’ new technologies from governments, media, peers whilst at the same
time experiencing a fairly limited utility and usefulness of the same technologies on a ‘‘micro’’
everyday life perspective.
Thus, on one hand, we found plentiful evidence in our interviews that ‘‘the personal computer has
become such a symbol of efficiency and participation in the information age that is it often
embarrassing for [people] to admit no knowledge of them’ (Lupton & Noble, 2002, p. 10). Yet, on
the other hand, although we found that older adults are less likely to be involved in the high level use of
ICT both in the home and at work, less likely to be involved in the culture of ICT and, most
importantly, less likely to be involved in the pleasures of using ICT (see Faulkner, 2001). From this
perspective, if something is both less useful and less pleasurable in practice then people are
understandably less inclined to engage with it. Of course, ‘‘the effect of the felt ambivalence about
technology is often either immobilising or polarising’’ (Faulkner, 2001, p. 90). Whilst some of our
interviewees were polarised into an almost ideological opposition to computers, the majority were
immobilised via an inability to fit computers usefully into their lives and, therefore, made little or no
use of them (this was the case with 18 of our 35 interviewees who expressed such tensions, all but one
within the initial survey categories of nonusers and moderate users).
Thus, it would seem that a highly salient reason behind the nonuse of computers is simply the
(non)relevance of ICT to older adults’ lives. Much academic and political interest in older adults and
technology has been based on an implicit assumption that ICT use is an inherently useful and desirable
activity throughout all sectors of society. Thus, for many authors, the logic behind overcoming the digital
divide is an imperative toward ‘‘giving people the information tools they need to participate in the
decision-making structures which affect their daily lives. It means helping people use these resources to
deal with their everyday problems’’ (Doctor, 1994, p. 9). Yet, the rhetoric of the ‘‘information society’’
belies the fact that for many older people ‘‘dealing with everyday problems’’ does not involve personal
use of ICT. As we saw from our interviews with current nonusers of computers, having no need or no
interest in using computers is a regularly cited and powerful rationale. There is maybe a need here to
reconsider the ‘‘relative advantage’’ (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971) and ‘‘situational relevance’’ (Wilson,
382
N. Selwyn / Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369–384
1973) of ICT use for older adults. As Balnaves and Caputi (1997, p. 92) reason, it follows that where the
impact, meaning, and consequences of ICT use are limited for individuals then we cannot expect
sustained levels of engagement: ‘‘the concept of the information age, predicated upon technology and
the media, deals with the transformation of society. However, without improvements in quality of life
there would seem to be little point in adopting online multimedia services.’’ In other words, only ‘‘when
a system is useful and training is made available, older adults will take part in the Information Age’’
(Rousseau & Rogers, 1998, p. 427).
This leaves us in a conundrum regarding the policy-orientated concern with how older adults can be
encouraged to make more use of ICT. As was intimated at the beginning of the article, much current
thinking in this area has been based around the notion of ‘‘correcting’’ the deficiencies of non-ICT using
individuals—be it in terms of augmenting their access, skills, or disposition. Some authors contend that
computers merely need to be better publicised and ‘‘sold’’ to older adults to persuade their use, for
example, ‘‘education programs may also be needed to inform the elderly of the potential capabilities of
the new technology’’ (Madden & Savage, 2000, p. 183). Whilst we would not contend that there is no
need for computer education and training provision this technologically determinist view of non-ICT
using older adults needing to be reskilled and reeducated toward computers ignores the fact that
technology is socially shaped and determined (e.g., Edge, 1995; Woolgar, 1996). Indeed, older people
are far more likely to be ‘‘on the receiving end’’ of new technologies than to be involved in their creation
(Arnold & Faulkner, 1985). It could, therefore, be the case that rather than trying to change older adults,
older adults should be involved in changing ICT to be more of an attractive, interesting, or useful option
for many older adults.
From this point of view, it could well be appropriate for the government and other interested
parties to begin to consider alternative means of ‘‘reshaping’’ ICT to fit better with the lives of older
adults—rather than the other way around. The point has been well made recently in that many
government websites purporting to offer citizens ready access to state services such as pensions,
social security, television licensing, and the like are underused due to their lack of substance and
utility (Hedra, 2002; Public Accounts Committee, 2002). Similarly, the modest boom in online
shopping has been largely based around a narrow range of leisure and entertainment products such as
CDs, videos, DVDs, books, and electrical and computing equipment. One would hardly expect older
adults to begin purchasing such products online if they are not already doing so in the high street.
The practical barrier to the development of more ICT-based services tailored toward the needs and
interests of older adults is that few, if any, companies would likely to be willing to provide them until
a ready online consumer base exists. Older people are unlikely to develop an interest in using ICTs
until such services are available. Yet whilst such strategies may go some way to increasing the takeup of ICT by older adults, there is also a pressing need to promote more realistic expectations for
ICT use. The government and others must accept that, in its present forms, ICT is not universally
attractive to, or universally needed by, older adults. Until these circumstances alter it is, perhaps,
unrealistic to expect universal take-up of ICTs such as the computer and Internet by older adults as is
currently hoped.
References
Adler, R. (1996) Older adults and computers. Available online at http://www.seniornet.org/php/default.php?PageID =
5476&Version = 0&Font = 0.
N. Selwyn / Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369–384
383
Arnold, E., Faulkner, W. (1985). Smothered by invention: The masculinity of technology. In W. Faulkner, & E. Arnold (Eds.),
Smothered by invention: Technology in women’s lives ( pp. 18 – 50). London: Pluto Press.
Balnaves, M., Caputi, P. (1997). Technological wealth and the evaluation of information poverty. Media International Australia, 83, 92 – 102.
Bernard, M., Phillips, J. (2000). The challenge of ageing in tomorrow’s Britain. Ageing and Society, 20, 33 – 54.
Brayfield, C. (2000). Rise of the silver surfers. The Times, 37.
Burdick, D. (2001). Digital divide or tool for understanding and collaboration: Computers and intergenerational relationships.
Paper presented to the 54th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Gerontological Society of Americas, Chicago.
Cody, M., Dunn, D., Hoppin, S., Wendt, P. (1999). Silver surfers: Training and evaluating Internet use among older adult
learners. Communication Education, 48, 269 – 286.
Copps, A. (2000, November 6). Gold mine awaits in the silver-surfer market. The Times, Interface, 2.
Dhunpath, R. (2000). Life history methodology: ‘‘Narradigm’’ regained. Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 543 – 551.
Doctor, R. (1994). Seeking equity in the national information infrastructure. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 4(3), 9 – 22.
Edge, D. (1995). The social shaping of technology. In N. Heap, R. Thomas, G. Einon, R. Mason, & H. Mackay (Eds.),
Information technology and society ( pp. 14 – 32). London: Sage.
Faulkner, W. (2001). The technology question in feminism: A view from feminist technology studies. Women’s Studies
International Forum, 24(1), 79 – 95.
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, L. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Green, R., & McAdams, D. (2003, April 9). The souls of digital black folks: A narrative study of digitally fluent AfricanAmericans. Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association Annuals Conference, Chicago.
Hanley, P. (2002). The numbers game: Older people and the media. London: Independent Television Commission.
Hedra Consultancy (2002). One billion pound government internet strategy misses target. (Press release). Farnham, Surrey:
Author.
Irizarry, C., Downing, A. (1997). Computers enhancing the lives of older people. Australian Journal on Ageing, 16(4),
161 – 165.
Loges, W., Jung, J. (2001). Exploring the digital divide: Internet connectedness and age. Communication Research, 28(4),
536 – 562.
Lupton, D., & Noble, G. (2002). Mine/not mine: Appropriating personal computers in the academic workplace. Journal of
Sociology, 38(1), 5 – 23.
Madden, G., & Savage, S. (2000). Some economic and social aspects of residential Internet use in Australia. Journal of Media
Economics, 13(3), 171 – 185.
McAdams, D. (1998). The role of defence in the life story. Journal of Personality, 66, 1125 – 1146.
Menec, V. (2003). The relation between everyday activities and succesful ageing. Journal of Gerontology B, 58, 574 – 582.
Murdock, G. (2002, 19 February). Tackling the digital divide: Evidence and intervention. Paper presented given to British
Educational Communications and Technology Agency seminar, The Digital Divide, Coventry, Warwickshire.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. London: Coronet.
Public Accounts Committee (2002). Improving public services through e-government: Public accounts. (Fifty-fourth Report).
London: Stationery Office.
Rogers, E., Shoemaker, F. (1971). Communication of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rousseau, G., Rogers, W. (1998). Computer usage patterns of university faculty members across the life span. Computers in
Human Behavior, 14(3), 417 – 428.
Savolainen, R. (2000, March 8). Embarking on the Internet: What motivates people? ASLIB Proceeding, 52(5), 185 – 193.
Selwyn, N., Gorard, S., Furlong, J., & Madden, L. (2003). Exploring older adults’ use of information and communications
technology in everyday life. Ageing and Society, 23(5), 561 – 582.
Smelser, N. (1999). The rational and the ambivalent in the social sciences. American Sociological Review, 63(1), 1 – 15.
Strauss, A. L. (2000, November 6). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Teo, T. (2000). Demographic and motivation variables associated with Internet usage activities. Internet Research: Electronic
Networking Applications and Policy, 11(2), 125 – 137.
Wallace, C. (2002). Household strategies: their conceptual relevance and analytical scope in social research. Sociology, 36 (2),
275 – 292.
384
N. Selwyn / Journal of Aging Studies 18 (2004) 369–384
Weingardt, K. (2000). Viewing ambivalence from a sociological perspective: Implications for psychotherapists. Psychotherapy,
37(4), 298 – 306.
White, H., McConnell, E., Clipp, E., Bynum, L., Teague, C., Navas, L., Craven, S., & Halbrecht, H. (1999). Surfing the net in
later life: A review of the literature and pilot study of computer use and quality of life. Journal of Applied Gerontology,
18(3), 358 – 378.
White, J., & Weatherall, A. (2000). A grounded theory analysis of older adults and information technology. Educational
Gerontology, 26(4), 371 – 386.
Williams, C., & Windebank, J. (2000). Self-help and mutual aid in urban neighbourhoods: Some lessons from Southampton.
Urban Studies, 37(1), 127 – 147.
Wills, M. (1999, December). Bridging the digital divide. Adults Learning, 10 – 11.
Wilson, M. (1973). Situational relevance. Information Storage and Retrieval, 9, 457 – 471.
Woolgar, S. (1996). Technologies as cultural artefacts. In W. Dutton (Ed.), Information and communication technologies
( pp. 87 – 102). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wright, K. (2000). Computer-mediated social support, older adults, and coping. Journal of Communication, 50(3), 100 – 118.